Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Respondent: SARGODHA TEXTILE MILLS
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs SARGODHA TEXTILE MILLS Case No.: Appeal No, SG-544 of 1984 Date of Judgment:1984-12-16 Reported As: 1985 PLC 608 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The decision, dated 27th August, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed. 2. The appellant claims to be the employee of the respondent and his case is that he was verbally terminated. The learned lower Court relied upon the copies of the attendance register Exhs. R-1 to R-6. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show the name of the appellant in the said documents. If the appellant had been the employee of the respondent, his name would have been entered in the attendance register. Exhs. R. 7 to R. 9 are the copies of the schedule sent by the respondent to the Social Security but in these documents too the name of the appellant cannot be found. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out the name of the appellant in these documents. It has, however, been argued that the learned lower Court ignored Social Security Cards Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2. I have carefully inspected these documents but they do not support the case of the appellant. Exh. P. 1 is a prescription but neither the name of the patient is decipherable, nor it appears that it was given by some doctor of the Social Security. Exh. P. 2 is a list of dependants. On this document too the name of the appellant cannot be found. It therefore, cannot be said that the dependants named therein are the dependants of the appellant. Moreover, Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2 do not show that they were issued by the respondent. So the appellant failed to establish that he was, employee of the respondent. His oral statement is not sufficient particularly when it stands controverted by the statement of P. W. 1 and the documents Exhs. R. 1 to R. 9. So the appellant was rightly non-suited.